Robinson v. Ariyoshi’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 district · 78 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[B]y this reservation, a public trust was imposed upon all the waters of the kingdom. That is, we find the public interest in the waters of the kingdom was understood to necessitate a retention of authority and the imposition of a concomitant duty to maintain the purity and flow of our waters for future generations and to assure that the ivaters of our land are put to reasonable and beneficial uses. This is not ownership in the corporeal sense where the State may do with the property as it pleases; rather, we comprehend the nature of the State’s ownership as a retention of such authority to assure the continued existence and beneficial application of the resource for the common good.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Water Use Permit Applications · In re Contested Case Hearing re Conservation District Use Application

2. “a more constructive approach would be to consider a statement of a superior court binding on inferior tribunals, even though technically dictum, inhere it “was passed upon by the court with as great care and, deliberation as if it had been necessary to decide it, was closely connected with the question upon which the case was decided, and the opinion was expressed with a view to settling a question that woidd in all probability have to be decided before the litigation was ended.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Oughterson · Garcia v. Robinson

3. “) also commenced this action in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, alleging violations of the due process and just compensation clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. 2 The district court ruled in favor of Robinson, and the State appealed. 8 In considering the appeal, we certified six questions to the Supreme Court of Hawaii. We specifically asked whether the State of Hawaii could claim collateral estoppel or bar and merger effect from its decision in McBryde II in a future action to quiet title. The court responded that”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Selwyn A. Robinson, Trustee Under the Will of Alymer F. Robinson Eleanor Robinson, Trustee Under the Will of Aylmer F. Robinson Bruce R. Robinson, Trustee Under the Will of Aylmer F. Robinson Russell S. Robinson Helen M. Robinson, Individually and as of the Estate of Lester B. Robinson Ruth R. Le Fiell Marion R. Keat Jean R. Weir Keith P. Y v. George R. Ariyoshi, Governor Ronald Y. Amemiya, Attorney General Andrew S.O. Lee William Y. Thompson Stanley W. Hong Larry E. Mehau Manuel Moniz, Jr. Moses W. Kealoha Takeo Yamamoto, Chairman and Members, Board of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii, as Succeeded by John D. Waihee, Governor, State of Hawaii, Warren Price, Iii, Attorney General, State of Hawaii, William W. Paty, John Y. Arisumi, Herbert Y. Arata, J. Douglas Ing, Moses W. Kealoha and Leonard H. Zalopany, Chairman and Members, Board of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii v. McBryde Sugar Company, Ltd., Olokele Sugar Company, Ltd. Ida Albarado Helen B. Chu Henry J. Chu Chee Kung Fui Society Lapaz Francisco Marcelino Francisco Albert K. Kaailua Linda P. Kaiakapu Ann N. Kali Harriet U. Kano Junichi Kano Kiyoshi Kimata Arnold W.F. Leong Katherine A. Leong Lo Sun D. Leong Tai Hung Leong Hanayo T. Naumu Wallace A. Naumu Hideo Nonaka Hiromi Nonaka Kazuo Nonaka Masatoshi Nonaka Shigekichi Nonaka Takano Nonaka and Tadao Nonaka, (Two Cases) · Robinson v. Ariyoshi